I haven’t really paid the trust much attention of late, focusing instead on my purchases of shares in BP (BP.L) and Personal Assets . But this morning I noticed that I’ve actually made 10.7% on the holding, which has rebounded far more strongly than some of my other investments, such as Lloyds (LLOY.L) and TR Property .

That said, my entire portfolio is up 11.7% since I bought Scottish Oriental (although at £9,236.84 last time I looked, it’s still down 7.6% since I started investing…)

Basically the trust, which unsurprising invests in smaller companies across Asia, has done well as emerging markets have rebounded on hopes that Europe won’t collapse and the global recovery is still on track. The chance that China will start easing monetary policy, I understand, is likely to help those shares do even better in the future.

And it’s also got a great name: makes me think of a haggis, in a tartan-coloured takeaway container, stuffed with egg fried rice and sweet and sweet and sour noodles.

But what's really encouraging about the investment is that I bought in when everyone else was selling out of markets. They were scared; I was collected and machine-like.

Of course, I need to own a wide range of investments to diversify my portfolio yada yada, but my gains on this trust teach me that other golden rule: buy good quality assets on the cheap, then hold them.

Admittedly the price I paid for BP, 503.3p, was not particularly cheap. But it is a solid company, with a growing dividend – and I read a while ago that the stock could actually be worth as much as 900p if management decide to act on a radical break-up strategy.

And readers were generally supportive of the move, even though a few bristled somewhat at the triumphalist tone of my last piece.

Dave: As learning curves go it seems to have taken forever for him to grasp the utterly obvious....DI seems to be conducting a master class in, at best, ineptitude....at worst crass stupidity with a generous helping of patronisingly facile observations.

Run your gains and sell your losses. Invest in quality and diversify your portfolio. Don't try and make a fast buck. Investing is a marathon not a sprint. Don't buy a share on the way down (don't catch a falling knife). These sayings have emerged for a reason based on the investment experiences of many but DI has done the opposite insofar far as I recall but gradually some sensible acquisitions have been made.

In terms of the individual shares now held I think BP will serve DI well in time - he should be patient - even though that was probably not the best oil pick given the litigation that still remains to be settled with State and National governments.

Another saying springs to mind. Don't buy on uncertainty as that is a gamble not an investment.

Barclays probably would have been a good hold at the price paid but DI was impatient and since this series began the strategy has emerged of selling winners and keeping losers.

But, apart from Lloyds the portfolio now looks reasonably OK. Of course I'm no expert just an enthusiatic amateur who has reached his investment goals and now invests for safety.

11.7% is probably about average for most of us I've appreciated 12% since August 15 th by doing nothing much, though I sold Petra diamonds in November '11 for 112% profit after 3 months 2 weeks, cos I needed cash.

There should definitely be some sort of measurement of how shares perform against the general market for that type of share. Brokers get massive bonuses when the markets go up and their shares go up with the market (even if they go up by less than the market average). If they don't do better than the market average they shouldn't get any bonus as they are doing no better than a simple bot.

Congratulations on your 11% gain a sum better than the high street rate.

You have touched on a few subjects in your latest posting but most importantly the overall ability to buy good quality asserts on the cheap.

The rule can sometimes apply in a few scenarios such as the overall encouragement to be playful when it comes a percentage in the portfolio something you are showing lately.

One more other rule would be to cream off the profits on those so quality bits of the market by holding them short to mid term life cycles instead of the opposite - sometimes even a few hours.....days........buying and selling..........as quickly as you bought them.

You seat on your holdings like granny's deposit underneath the mattress which discourages money to work harder in the portfolio.

Therefore I encourage you to divide the portfolio into reserves, short to mid term and buy to hold as a sealing to strengthen the foundations earning dividend interim vs afar.

If you can complete that exercise it will allow you to see the bigger picture while delivering plenty of time to concentrate on the necessities.

Where you go wrong in my opinion is management which sometimes make your portfolio haphazard.

Ah Jonathan, but if they are more or less all performing the same, ie against a herded benchmark there's no way to differentiate for the most part; they have the argument of a clique mentality in their defence. You pays your money and takes your pick!

If that was the case you would always be better off choosing a fund with a very low fee that just uses a simple bot to buy a particular market. Fund managers take the credit for a rising market and don't get any credit when they perform better than the market in a falling market. So they are paid mainly against market performance and nothing to do with their particular skill.

Jonathan, logic suggests you could be right; in any case it most likely the bonus is not for the fund's performance against the market, rather how many clients have been acquired (business done) in the year against competitors.

Of course having more clients which implies more money on your books which would make for a bigger profit, that goes without saying, after all 2% of a large amount is more than 2% of a small amount. Where I feel no ease and get no comfort from is that fund managers get a certain percentage annually of the investors money no matter how good or bad they are at investing. The percentage should be a certain percentage of performance when compared to the overall performance of the market. If they do the same as the market they get the same take a simple bot would get and if they do better than the market a big cut of the amount they have made above the market performance and if they do worse than the market they should get some deductions from their salary.

Jonathan, that is just wishful thinking, thus pointless aggravation, how could it be implemented? in fact I don't know how fund managers and their people compute their remunerations, but a client of theirs can employ the democratic imperative and leave failures to their own devices and find better. Personally, I choose individual equities through reading various analytical advice and only invest in funds for special cases to provide further diversification.

I am not sure that the activity of a bot as you call it is much different in principal from what a fund manager does anyway, inasmuch it is as I understand it a computer programme that goes through data wth a degree of autonomy and is just as likely to fail and succeed in the same way; admittedly it's just a formula, but it is set up with presumptious parameters and constraints by someone. In fact all that business is not my field, but I imagine fund managers use bots, charts and other devices in varying degree in the process of asset selection. Do you suggest using one of your own.

To Alan: I think we're the only two to have noticed this elementary flaw in DI's logic - everyone else seems intent on displaying their faultless knowledge of financial speak gleaned from poring over publications like Investors Chronicle and countless "expert" websites....they're all masters in the art of self-deception and they all sincerely believe that they know what they're doing, if it wasn't funny it would be tragic. Mike88 is a splendid example.

Thanks Rustie. I pointed out that these sayings had emerged for a reason implying that DIs strategy ran completely counter to all of these which was to sell winners and keep losers.

Not once did I say that I knew what I was doing. Indeed I have pointed out previously that people who think they are clever in making money are more often than not gamblers not investors.That upset a few but I stand by it even though I'm in a minority of one. That hardly constitutes self deception in my book but if you want to chuck around insults then that's fine by me.

The word "uncertainty" was used in the context of the litigation surrounding BP. If State and national governments get their way the share price could collapse. If that doesn't constitute uncertainty I don't know what does.

Rustie..............Oh dear! You know exactly what I mean and you are now splitting hairs. Surely it is obvious that some risks are greater than others. If a company is facing claims for damages running into billions then that creates greater uncertainy than normal trading risks experienced by all companies. But you know that and I'm surprised you feel it is necessary to continue the argument.

You seem to be suggesting that the quote originates from me. It doesn't and I thought I had made that clear.

"..............................everyone else seems intent on displaying their faultless knowledge of financial speak gleaned from poring over publications like Investors Chronicle and countless "expert" websites....they're all masters in the art of self-deception and they all sincerely believe that they know what they're doing, if it wasn't funny it would be tragic."

On Lloyds you said:

"This month 25 out of 29 analysts have either strongly recommended, recommended or held them."

Your latest post on Lloyds seems to be at odds with your original post. Now you seem to be displaying your knowledge of Lloyds by referring to other sources of information such as the "expert" websites you decry.

I should also mention that you have quoted me selectively again. I said that I now invest for safety because I have reached my investment goals. For that reason I would not hold Lloyds. But that is my opinion based on my own investment position

I'm demonstrating my original point - that contributors affect to know, when in fact they don't. That 25 out of 29 analysts are bullish on Lloyds puts your advice to DI re: Lloyds where it belongs, in the rubbish bin along with all the other pseudo-expert claptrap that appears on here. Let me spell it out - you say no to Lloyds, they say yes.........get it yet?

Your first sentence makes no sense. Are you suggesting contributors know nothing but you do because you study analyst recommendations?

That aside there are 4 of the 29 analysts who are not bullish on Lloyds according to you. Are these 4 necessarily wrong? Do you know anything more than the 4 which rate Lloyds as a sell. The implication is that you do.

You imply you buy shares based on a consensus of analyst recommendations. Is that it?

Contributors on here are expressing opinions mostly as enthusiastic amateurs. You are the only person who professes to have a degree of expertise which onthe evidence so far seems to be based on the flimsiest of evidence - namely analyst recommendations.

If you thinkyour "expertise" gives you the right to critisise everyone else so be it. That is my last word on the matter.

We have a good argument regarding decision chains when it comes market information.

On that point in my experience it comes down to common sense once again on the simple basis analyst recommendations in many cases are fairly not in line with what the market says.

The first lesson to any investor is that too often analyst recommendations offer very simplistic view of the instrument because it is between good, neutral and bad when one examines the terms.

Secondly is the lack of a uniform picture when it comes to information delivered to the investor - too many firms delivering different outcomes which when looked at can become confusing.

On LYG am afraid I see too many technicalities not even accommodate the instrument on the basis that we have just had a slightly stead market as of recent but the EPS - Earning Per Share is -753.25% so far this year.

Other indicators also in play since the start of the year;

- ROE - Return On Equity -6.06%

- Institutional Ownership has headed to -22.32 to 0.27% now - One Of the powerful health status of a stock.

With Figures like that am afraid to say that analyst recommendations are absolute DOGS after all it never their money just an opinion.

Common Sense and good fundamentals beat any analyst recommendation any day.

My advice? - don't give advice and don't take it. Nobody knows anything more about what shares are going to rise than you do and if they did, they wouldn't tell you and some unforeseen event could trash their plans anyway. Nothing's certain, either in life or the Stock Market

Thanks for this Rustie!! I do like a good swipe at the smug and meaningless....

I'm sure that there are many of us who have slightly more knowledge of how to assess investments, but in reality the timing aspect is B.S.

Even if we spend the whole day in front of our screens we're never going to get the timing perfect - by the time we pick up on selling signals the price has usually fallen further. And if we're wrong prices rise again - we've incurred costs and lost potential profit. In any case it is long term investing that really makes the money.

leave a comment

Making the most out of Europe’s potential means seeing things differently. Learn more about how BlackRock’s focused approach to investing in Europe helps investors unlock the continent’s vast potential.